(first posted 4/28/2014) No man is without his prejudices and biases, but I am among the most even-handed regarding automotive brands. I have almost no brand loyalty. What was once a social faux-pas is now liberating; I’m free to like what I please. With that being said, I have always preferred GM intermediates to Fairlanes, and own a Skylark to prove it. However, I would be remiss if I didn’t bring up the fact that the intermediate itself was one of Ford’s “better ideas,” leaving the General scrambling for their own entries into this popular new field.
It’s been said that GM often took Ford’s ideas and made them better, and even if they didn’t necessarily actually improve upon these ideas, it’s hard to argue that they didn’t sometimes “steal them.” There are several examples of this assertion: the Fairlane begat the Chevelle/BOPettes, the Mustang the Camaro (although it arguably copied the Corvair Monza), the LTD the Caprice, and the Thunderbird the Riviera/Toronado. In reality, however, the Fairlane and its intermediate architecture wasn’t a new idea at all; in fact, it was really a mere seven or so years old.
The newly intermediate ’62 Fairlane cast roughly the same size shadow as a “full-size” Ford from 1955. The big Fords (including the Fairlane through ’61) had simply grown in stature so quickly that somebody at Ford realized that there must be a market for something along the lines of that ’55. Dodge and Plymouth obviously tried another tactic–they downsized their biggest models to mediocre sales results, leaving them scrambling for a traditionally sized alternative (I’m looking at you, 880 Custom). Ford correctly assessed that there was a big market for both sizes, and for two model years, they reaped the reward of their prescience, to the tune of well over 500,000 unit sales over those two years.
It’s impossible to say how many of those sales came at the expense of the big Fords or Falcons, but it seems that someone correctly assessed a market need and drove a Fairlane into the gap.
Today’s feature car is a top-of-the-line 1963 Fairlane Sport Coupe, from the second model year of the downsized Fairlane. Fairlane convertibles weren’t available until 1966, leaving the sporty hardtop as the only option for those who wanted racy styling. The brochure printed above lists two V8 options for the ’63 Fairlane, a 221 and a 260.
The 221 would disappear after 1963, as its 145-horsepower struggled to keep up with the increasingly fast-paced world of the 1960s. Mid-year, however, Ford introduced an engine that would race around the world and fill the engine compartments of hundreds of thousands of Mustangs in the future.
The 289 shared its architecture with the 221 and 260, adding a larger 4-inch bore to the existing 2.87-inch stroke. It lasted only six model years, from 1963 to 1968, but it’s still well-known as a high-revving and durable powerplant, especially in K-Code “High-Performance” trim. This ’63 carries the little-seen and seldom-ordered 289 “Hi-Po,” and wears the requisite badges. The solid-lifter 289 lasted until 1967, when big-blocks made the expensive option somewhat obsolete. If you wanted a reasonably competitive small-block Ford at this time, this was your option. Ford arguably didn’t have another really hard-charging small-block until 1969’s Boss 302.
The engine compartment of this example is magnificently clean, and shows the differences between the early “Hi-Po” and later models. This example has vacuum advance, which later models eschewed for a centrifugal-advance-only distributor with a more advantageous timing curve. As some have pointed out in the comments, the distributor on 1963 K-Code cars used a blocked off vacuum advance canister, whereas later models eliminated the canister entirely. Both versions relied on mechanical advance only. The ’63 model also has the generator that Ford would hang onto until the 1965 models were introduced.
The huge shock towers that intrude upon this 289 explain why Ford didn’t offer a big-block option until 1966. Right next to those shock towers, however, were some header-like cast iron exhaust manifolds that flowed more freely than the standard 289’s. The big difference in the K-Code, compared to other 289s, was the solid lifter camshaft that allowed a redline of well over 6000 RPM, which was indeed the horsepower peak. K-Code cars usually came standard with a 3.50 axle ratio, and were only available with a 4-speed until late-1964.
Ford advertised the 289 (the 271-horsepower version was the only 289 one could order in 1963) as a potential winner at the drags, as evidenced by the driving gloved hand and smoky-tired launch in the advertisement above. Ford had recently renounced the AMA ban on racing (that other manufacturers had been covertly ignoring for years), and felt free to advertise speed and power again, eventually tagging the lineup as the “Total Performance” family and the “Lively Ones.”
Unfortunately, 289 Fairlanes weren’t often real winners at the drag strip. Whether they were classed disadvantageously or just didn’t have the guts that small-block GMs did, few of these made dents in the stock classes. In fact, by many standards, the K-Code wasn’t all that quick. 16-second quarter-mile times were fairly normal for showroom-stock 289s. Not bad, but not enough to scare later Chevy 327s, or even old 283-powered shoeboxes, at least from what I’ve been able to gather.
It’s unlikely, however, that the original owner of this fully-decked Sport Coupe was interested in flogging it down the quarter-mile on a weekly basis, and it’s probable that it acquitted itself just fine on the streets of America. This is a beautiful example of 1960s nostalgia, with a welcoming red interior. This version has sporty buckets, a console, the mandatory 4-speed shifter, and a cool “Rotunda” tachometer that looks just right at the driver’s right knee. Its trifecta of round gauge pods look the part, making this car a suitable home for a raucous engine option.
I think I’d go so far as to say that this was an early muscle car. It didn’t have the image or raw torque of a later GTO, but it did place a powerful engine under the hood of an intermediate-sized car, something that no other automaker really did in 1963, especially if you consider the ’63 Mopars to be “full-size.” A better idea? I’ll leave that up to you.
While the small block Ford (even the Hi-Po) was pretty handicapped out the door, it does not take much to wake them up….just ask Carroll Shelby….oh, wait, you can’t anymore 🙁
And this tiny engine did indeed replace the Y (why??) Block. Love these engines!
The way it worked out, the small block didn’t really replace the Y-block, but really what Ford did was create a much smaller V8 (small block) and a slightly larger V8 (the FE and related, but even larger, MEL).
The Y-block got a longer lifespan in Argentina and Brazil while he got under the hood of Argentinian Fairlane, Brazilian Galaxie and local pick-ups trucks
http://www.eatonbalancing.com/blog/2009/07/05/the-ford-y-block-engine/
http://forums.y-blocksforever.com/Topic41341.aspx Looks like they saw some potential about the Y-block.
Certainly the small-block has well-acquitted itself over the years…I think we can thank the 5.0 Mustang for that!
The Y-Block was certainly a question-mark in Ford’s history, or a false start, but they sure look cool. Have you ever seen the intake ports on one of those? Weird.
I find it interesting that while GM’s initial crop of V8 engines after the war had some pretty long legs in terms of design-longevity, those of Ford and Chrysler seemed to be more like evolutionary dead-ends. Ford’s Y block and Chrysler’s polyspheric V8s were gone by the mid 1960s, and their replacements owed little to the earlier engines’ design philosophies.
Sure, we can thank the 5.0L Mustang for that. Funny thing is, the 302 was basically born into the smog era; I cannot recall how many times (pre-1982ish) I heard what a killer engine the 289 is, and what a POS the 302 is. Despite the fact that the 302 is nothing more than a stroker 289 with slightly shorter connecting rods. On a side note, I just scored a cast in March of ’70, genuine Boss 302 4 bolt main block, fully machined and ready to build. Been looking decades for one, and have ran across more hen’s teeth than these blocks.
The second of many Falcon derivatives. That such an uninspired car had so many offspring shows the power the Ford brand used to command.
This would be the 3rd derivative of the Falcon as the Comet was a stretched version that was almost as big as the first Fairlane. Comet 114″ wheelbase, a fairly significant stretch of the 109.5″ used on the original Falcon, vs the 115.5″ of the Fairlane.
no, 2nd derivative.
Falcon was the original.
Comet was first derivative.
This Fairlane was second derivative. The Mercury Meteor, the Fairlane clone, was either 2.5 or 3.
Spoken as a son of a Chevy dealer 1950-65: I had to laugh. All the guessing that the car of the day was a ’59 Chevy, because “the chrome is placed badly, that’s so GM” . . . . . and its a Ford!
Which I knew back then were POS cars compared to a Chevrolet in everything, especially build quality. If you wanted quality, you bought Chevrolet.
(And yes, I also guess ’59 Chevy, but not for the quality control.)
Come on Syke; we’re not in 5th grade anymore…..
Considering I’ve owned as many Fords and Chevys over the past 40 years (and more Dodges than either of the two), I still get a good laugh.
And, of course, since Chevrolet put food on the table, a roof over our heads, me thru college, and my sister thru medical school . . . . . Fords suck.
One word: Vega
I had a ’73. Autocrossed it in B Sedan for three seasons. Still have fond memories of the car.
Man, who whizzed in your Chevyos?! Happy monday to you too! LOL
I had a feeling that might have been a ’63 Fairlane in the Curbside Clue. I have one sitting in my driveway and the chrome side trim is just as wonky.
Every time I take it out for a drive, someone asks me to sell it to them. Every single time without fail.
We used to call ‘chevy’s’ Detroit Vibrators LOL / I will take a Old FORD over any Old Chevy anyday ”’
A case could be made that the 1956 Rambler was really the first intermediate, even if George Romney did insist on calling it a compact.
I’ve always liked these Fairlanes…they were very trim and neatly styled. The 1963-64 hardtop coupes were particularly attractive. This is a very nice example.
I love these. About 1971, a cousin was watching my sister and I for the summer while my mother was at work. Dave had a friend who was driving his father’s 64 Fairlane Sports Coupe – also a 289 (though probably not the HiPo) and 4 speed. I fell in love with the car, which was Vintage Burgundy with a black bucket seat/console interior. The car didn’t sound mean enough for the kid, so he punched a bunch of nail holes into the muffler (quickly replaced by a new glasspack). I got to ride in it several times.
As for other smaller cars with big power, it’s easy to forget the 1963 Studebaker Super Lark with its R2 supercharged 289. The Lark was an odd size, big for a compact and on a short wheelbase for an intermediate. Not many were made, but it was a screamer (that could also stop with its Bendix disc brakes). We did a piece on a road test here. https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-1963-days-popular-science-tests-the-hot-compacts/ The Falcon didn’t do so well, but a K code Fairlane might have at least been competitive.
I recently found a very cool ad of a ’64 Fairlane Sport Coupe in Vintage Burgundy…neat looking car!
The ad’s too big for my scanner and I can’t find it online.
As much as I love the 64, I find the 63 even more attractive due to its sharper lines. The styling on these cars has always made them look (at least to me) smaller than they really are.
Excellent job on the piece, BTW.
Yes, there’s a clean tightness to the 63’s that makes them the best of the bunch.The same with the full-size ’63 Ford. Good year.
I’ve always thought that a good case could be made that 1963 was the high-water mark for US car design. As evidence, I offer this Fairlane, the full-size Fords, the Impala, the Riviera, and of course, the split-window ‘Vette. The runner up might be 1964, which of course offered up the Mustang (technically a 4.5 I know) and the GTO…
I think I’ve mentioned this before, but the full-size 1961-64 Fords seemed like they were designed by two separate teams, each getting alternate years to play with – the ’61 and ’63 (and maybe even the ’65) by Team A, and the ’62 and ’64 by Team B.
Team A did ‘crisp & light’, and Team B did ‘clunky & heavy’, especially as seen from the rear. The ’63 feels stylistically more like a development of the ’61 than of the ’62. The ’62 and ’64 on the other hand appear to be using their own, quite different, styling approach – and feel like they should be only one year apart rather than two.
The Fairlane was spared the same design confusion, but did get a bit of the heavier ‘full size’ treatment in 1964. Ford obviously decided that fins finally had to go. The ’63 I agree was the prettiest of the bunch.
Good point robadr… with regard to A team as apposed to the B team… Then ,of course, we have the trim A team 65 Galaxie and the slightly heavier B team 66 Galaxie.
I had the same though back at the time, as a kid. I was very perplexed by the similarities between the 61-63, and 62-64. Odd.
I’ll be the odd man out here in that I’ve always found the ’64 Galaxies to be the best of the bunch. The ’63 does look crisper, but the ’64 has a nice aggressive “face” with the three v ridges on its grille, and both the 2-door and 4-door versions have less formal roof styling than did the ’63 (though the sportsroof versions, the best of the bunch, were very similar both years).
To all the GM bashers in the previous guessing thread… 🙂
Having seen a fair number of all-original 1960s cars from all manufacturers at various Carlisle events and the big AACA show at Hershey, I’d say that this type of slip-up was common to all manufacturers during that era.
The “better-than-new” restorations are generally given to really valuable cars, such as the muscle cars and big-block Corvettes. Cars such as this, which aren’t as valuable, are more likely to be given amateur restorations. The quality of amateur restorations vary widely, and many of them aren’t even as good as what came from the factory, let alone “better-than-new.”
I love these too; one of the better looking cars of the period.
Of course, Fairlanes loomed large in my world at the time, as we owned a ’62; sadly a black stripper Fordoor; at least it had the little 221 inch V8 instead of the 170 six, but with the two-speed Fordomatic, it was hardly brisk. And it was of course way too small for a family of 5, with big kids. https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classicauto-biography-1962-ford-fairlane-sometimes-it-is-about-the-destination/
At the time, I knew that the K-Code was available in the ’63, and kept an eye out for one, but I never saw one then, and I’m not sure I did later too. Great car, and would have been a terrific driver in 1963.
These compact (as we called them) Fairlanes were very popular in NZ but it was reading here that I found out they came with a 6 all ours were V8 and the 221 was a popular speedway motor due to its displacement they are getting thin on the ground now though in true CC style I saw one on Friday but being busy with a 18 speed trans in traffic got not pic and 10 minutes later got overtaken by a full size model, must learn to steer and shift one handed@ 45tonnes. No K codes in local assembly though and all fordors any tudors have been imported later.
I remember as a kid sitting in a Morrinsville farmer’s 221 ’63 Fairlane 4 door ..it sounded ‘good’ to me as we floated along the level road to the local airport where my father’s 180 was waiting to take us back to Ardmore, but now I realise the little engine was probably struggling under the fully loaded car’s weight (a full passenger complement on board of at least six plus one or two little extra ones on knees, lol) and he must have just about been using up all his manifold vacuum.. .. ..
Yes, they were also called (unofficially) compact Fairlanes in Australia, to distinguish them from the ‘tank’ Fairlanes of the 1959 model that ran through to 1962.
The 221 V8 was the same size as the original 1932 V8, and soon was ‘replaced’ by a 221 6-cyl. I’m not sure how many of them are left in Australia, I have only seen a handful.
I like the looks of these cars, but somewhat unhelpfully would like one in the forms they weren’t sold in Australia – hardtop, convertible or wagon!
Theres one near Coffs Harbour belongs to some friends non runner and not for sale their eldest child was born in it 289 motor tree shift manual.
I Bought a 1963 K code Fairlane.
Restored it resto mod, with a period correct Cobra Supercharger, 750 double pumper.
Runs like a scalded dog.
Love it
Two Fords in a row? That’s cheating. 🙂
I think the early Fairlanes are ugly cars. The 67 and new were a lot better looking and performing.
Yup, I love these too. We keep coming back with cars that are about the same size as 1955 models (was that an original PN theory?)
Would love to drive this today, but I’d feel a little foolish wearing tan leather driving gloves.
The tan gloved hand reaching for the shifter makes me think….”I need to go strangle someone….in a hurry!”
It may be the right color, but this a lot smaller than a Bronco… Does the glove fit?
Interesting trivia, before all the Bronco business in the 90’s, the Juice used to pitch for Chevrolet in the early 70’s. Maybe he was a Blazer guy back then?
The subject is a beautiful car. Kudos to the owner.
But, you have to wonder a bit why the establisher of the three size car line up was such an also ran in the mid-size segment. Sure, they outsold Chevy a few times, but GM’s complete line up trounced these cars every year. Ford’s Mercury versions never gained any traction except for a few “personal luxury” versions in the ’70s.
It seems like Ford feared upstaging their large cars and purposely held the Fairlanes back. The roofline and little fins are from the ’58 Thunderbird, and are in their 6th model year. The big Fords were done with fins after ’61 and the roofline was mostly killed off in ’63 with the fastback roof that became available. This basic Fairlane body shell carried on through ’65, a year with phoned in updates that seemed mismatched to the ageing body.
GM redefined a number of its cars to establish it’s mid-size segment in ’64, showing little fear of what it would do their large cars, and owned the segment for 20 years.
GM offered four intermediates compared to Ford’s two, so it was bound to claim the largest share of that segment based on sheer numbers.
The Mercury Comet/Montego was definitely an also-ran during most of the 1960s (although I always liked the 1968 and 1969 models). The Ford Fairlane and Torino were so far ahead of both the Chrysler offerings that I believe Ford, as a whole, still outsold Chrysler in this segment, even with the weak sales of the Comet/Montego.
True enough on the four offerings, but the Chevy alone was usually enough to do in the Ford. Ford got the size right before GM, but let leadership slide fast. Even with a much improved ’66 Ford offerings, it appears Chevy alone was in the ballpark of the Ford and Mercury offerings combined.
As is often the case, the first one into a new market may not hit the target square-on. I think that the 62-65 Fairlane turned out to be just a mite small for a mid-sizer, and when GM’s larger 1964 models came out (followed by Chrysler’s even larger B body “mid size” car in 1965) the Ford suffered in comparison. Also, the Fairlanes seemed to sell in very “Ford-like” numbers – within the ballpark of Chevy, well above Plymouth, but certainly not well enough to make up for Pontiac, Olds, Buick (and Dodge).
A fastback 68/69 Torino or Cyclone is one of my favourite American cars.
Ford just dropped the ball on the styling of the mid-sizers. The Falcon 2 door hardtop through ’65 was a good looking car in both of its iterations and the Galaxies certainly kept up with Chevy in terms of stylishness, but compare a ’64-’65 fairlane hardtop to a ’64-5 Chevelle—you can tell that Chevy put some more time into the intermediates to keep them really fresh while Ford let the basic ’62 lines hang along for what was a near eternity back then. Ford also kept trying to graft big car/tbird styling onto the smaller body and they just never got it right. What looked swoopy on the big cars looks silly on the small ones.
The ’66-67 Fairlane stopped all that with what must be one of the best styled 2 dorr hardtop intermediates of the 1960’s. These were definitely influenced by the GM coke bottle styling, but they got the entire package right on these IMO.
It also has to be said that the ’65 Fairlane was one of the worst refreshes I’ve ever seen on any car. Very true that the Fairlane of the era was a “shrunken big car” and I think it worked quite well here on the ’63, well enough on the ’64, but it flopped on the ’65. Very heavy-handed and oversquared.
The ’66 did come in as a breath of fresh air, but it also had a brand-new Chevelle to contend with that was clearly no slouch in the styling deparatment.
I am not sure if you are referring to these Fairlanes outselling Chevy, but if that’s the case, it didn’t happened. When Chevrolet introduced the Chevelle in 1964, it outsold the Fairlane. Chevrolet had the number one sales spot in the intermediate market until 1972 when the Torino took the top spot.
Agreed. I was being generous to Ford. You could argue that Ford had the segment for ’62 and ’63. And, I was also thinking of Torino for ’72 (and I believe ’73 and ’74 as well). But, of course, the Torino nameplate got a gift from Chevy in the form of the Monte Carlo which sucked up so many coupe sales.
Chevelle/Malibu / Monte Carlo and f85/Cutlass were enough to hand Ford its hat in the mid-size sales race every year. Pontiac and Buick were higher margin bonuses for GM in the segment. The early Taurus was the first time Ford sort of got an upper hand that stuck around for a while. A rough go for the establisher, if not the inventor, of the segment.
Good points, especially about Monte Carlo dividing the sales. That just goes to show how much Chevy dominated in 1970-71, when the Chevelle alone outsold Torino even without the Monte Carlo numbers. I’d have to check the numbers for 1974 but I know the numbers were still good for Torino that year. I know off the top of my head Torino led in 1973 too. The intermediate Ford sales took a big tumble for 1975 with the fuel prices up.
I was always perplexed about the Fairlane’s little fins. The Falcon never had them; and the big Ford ditched them for 1962. So why did they put them on a brand new car for 1962, given that Ford’s styling direction was clearly away from finlets.
It was not only the fins on the 62 Fairlane, but also the side trim pulled right off of the 1957 or 59 Fairlane that mystified me. However attractive that side trim might have been in the late 50s, its time was long past by 1962.
Yes, I meant to include that too. It would have looked very fashionable in 1959 or so. Odd.
I’m not sure that the 1964 is better looking though, being even more plain without the fins. I’ll defer making my mind up to if I ever buy one or the other, ie probably never.
Nice car but I like the galaxy better. The driving gloves look like they are missing the Freddie krugar knives
Nice write up. The K-code cars were pretty hot performers for their day but don’t seem to get much recognition outside of the Fairlane enthusiast circle, even to this day. I didn’t ever care for the 1962-65 Fairlane styling, especially compared with GM’s much more modern looking 1964+ A-bodies. I always thought the 1966-67 Fairlane was a big improvement. However an early K-code being small, light weight, relatively well balanced with a small high winding engine would have probably proved to be a better all-round performer than a 1966-67 390 GTA.
I like this,I never knew about this hot Fairlane was there a K code Mercury Meteor?My brother is still kicking himself for not splashing out on a 63 Fairlane V8 and buying a plain vanilla 62 4 door 6 cylinder as the 63 was just over the amount he was prepared to pay
I rode in a hot Fairlane. Scared me half to death. Don’t know if Ford actually built it.The car lot (Groton, Ct) said it was a thunderbolt but the commenters here said it couldn’t have been. Looking at pictures of thunderbolts the commenters were correct.. A 66 model with a big block and 4 speed. I doubt if I will ever accelerate that fast again and that’s ok with me.
Now my old mannish desires would be this with a straight six. I am a lot more interested in the car outlasting me than in going fast.
A blue ’62 Fairlane two door was my first college car, bought when it was 4 years old. Nice trim size and good looking too. Unfortunately it had the 170 which was not durable enough for a 19 year old with a heavy foot. After blowing it up twice I traded it on a ’64 Galaxie which turned out to be the worse car I have ever had.
So friggen cool. I never get tired of these understated and sophisticated looking early 60s designs from Detroit. The cars from later in the decade are what gets everyone’s panties wet, but IMO stuff like this is as good as it ever got. Especially the rare factory hot rods that came out of backdoor racing programs, those are the coolest.
Not that I go to tons of them, but I don’t really see (intermediate) Fairlanes at car shows too often, especially the early ones, which is a shame. Even the tame versions were handsome cars.
Great article – my first car was a 4 door 64 Fairlane 500 with the 260. I kept the engine stock, but once I got it in tune, it was as fast, if not faster, than my buddy’s 283 Chevy.
I would have to respectfully disagree however that the 289 K code was not that particularly fast or powerful – with that solid lifter cam, it was a real mean motor – and I saw it smoke more than its fair share of small block GM cars. I think the reason it didn’t get more recognition as a performance engine was that it sold in fairly small numbers.
Everyone seems to prefer the Sport Coupe. It’s hell finding parts for a four-door with bench seats. I can’t find upholstery or door panels, so I’m having my interior done in white by a local upholstery shop.
Not sure the year, make, and model, (you didn’t list them), but her are several different options you can look at.
Be sure to read each different selection as they all include more, or less items depending on price,
Good Luck
https://www.macsautoparts.com/ford_falcon_mercury_comet/catalogsearch/result/index/?cat=2422&q=&x=31&y=8
I have a 63 Fairlane 260V8 4spd car . How come I can’t find history on this drive train match ? I see 221 c/w 3spd , 260 c/w auto and 260 c/w 3spd then the 289 c/w spd ?
The 1963.5 Fairlanes offered the four speed on its V8s, both the 260 and the 289. Here’s a snip from the 1963.5 brochure.
Thats a great brochure Paul , Thanks ! That car is the same colour as mine less the vinyl roof . She is fairly new to me and I’ve been trying to find out how many cars came with the 260 and a 4spd . Any ideas ?
This site has thousands of old brochures: http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/
No idea on how many came with that combination. Sweet car; my dad bought a new ’62 Fairlane, but with the 221 V8 and Fordomatic. Here’s my story about it: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classicauto-biography-1962-ford-fairlane-sometimes-it-is-about-the-destination/
Hi is your fairlane for sale at all?
Regards Clive New Zealand
I owned a 64 fairlane sport coupe that I bought in 1965. Had no idea what the badge on the front fender ment, high performance 289. being a long time street racer and many races with my other cars at the local drag strip I soon found that this engine was the fastest that I had owned. Hear me out before LOL. Never lost a race except to my buddy who had 65 GTO -3 duces 360 hp We did a rolling start from 30 mph for 1,4 mile He beat me by one car length about tenth second.. I took the car to the strip with this set up. Removed as much weight as possible, opened up exhaust bypass, removed cooling fan, removed hub caps, used 100 plus octane gas .30 shaved from heads, new plugs and points. ran for time only no B S time 12.8 secs 95 mph .
I had a ’63 Fairlane 500 Sports Coupe, factory K code, given to me by grandma in ’69 because “I’m too old to shift!” The reverse cable broke so I took it to Baldwin Motion Performance (yes, THE Baldwin Motion) and had a Hurst put in for all of $100. Either I couldn’t drive correctly or the engine was not up to par, but I got whipped by a ’65 Mustang base 289, and, at the track, by a 326 Firebird. It “Ate” plugs every 6,00 miles, and the counterman always had to come outside for a look every time I purchased a set of dual points because the car wasn’t listed in the parts books. (yes, it was a ’63 and yes, it had the factory dual point centrifugal advance distributor). Like all kids of that era, I jacked it up, beat the hell out of it and sold it for $100! Stupid, stupid, stupid…
I had a ’63 Fairlane, Hi-Po 4 speed. Dial point centrifugal advance distributor (factory). Grandma gave it to me when she became “Too old to shift.” The reverse lock-out cable snapped a year after I got it, so Motion Performance (yes THEE Motion Performance) put a Hurst 4 SPD shifter in for $100. I jacked it up, smashed it up, beat it up and sold it for $100.
Kill me now…:(
I find it interesting that while Ford never embraced the tailfin in the way GM and Chrysler did, they held onto it longer than most companies. They were still using the 1957 style fins on the 1963 Fairlane.
‘You got fins to the left, fins to the right
And you’re the only bait in town”
Sorry, my inner Jimmie Buffett came out for a moment.
This may be just about the time I started reading Hot Rod magazine, realizing it had ads from Detroit that you didn’t see in LIFE! (April ’63 below). There’s probably a CC entry for it somewhere, but this engine begat the one-year pushrod Indy engine (1963) before Ford went all-out with the DOHC 255 engine for 1964 and thereafter: http://www.suddenlink.net/pages/jonknapek/fordv8/indy.html
“Ford arguably didn’t have another really hard-charging small-block until 1969’s Boss 302.”
The general consensus seems to be that the 1970 351C (a less highly strung version of the high-revving Boss 302) was the best, all-around Ford small-block engine, with the high-point being the Boss 351 version; Ford finally had a small-block performance engine comparable to the Mopar 340 and Chevy L79 327. It’s too bad the performance versions of the 351C arrived so late in the musclecar game that it was very short-lived.
The 221/260/289 was one of the lesser V8 efforts by Ford (even the high-performance versions), but it was the most compact V8 (the reason it was chosen to go into the Sunbeam Alpine to make the Tiger and the AC Ace to make the Cobra), not to mention that they were good for everyday use.
The author is mistaken about the ET for a K code motor.
Stock K codes have been known to turn low 15’s and sometimes high 14’s at the track.
You can rip the RPM’s safely to 7,000 RPM.
They gave some big block GTO’s a run for their money
The 16 second ET’s were turned by a C or A code.
I own a ’63 K code Fairlane Sport Coupe and it is a fun car that many people do not know exists. i was lucky enough to purchase a one owner original car with fairly low mileage. The car came complete with all of its original equipment. I mention this because the article states that the early cars (like the one in the photo) had vacuum advance distributors. This is incorrect. Ford used the body of a vacuum advance distributor, with a plug in the vacuum fitting. The ’63 cars had centrifugal advance dual point distributors. If one examines the photo closely they will find that there is no vacuum line running to the distributor and the vacuum port does not exist, it is plugged. The ’63 in the photo has the correct (valuable) distributor. It also has a nice looking but incorrect air cleaner lid. The first cars did not have the engine call out decals on the lid..
Back in the day I was a sophomore in high school. My parents bought a 63 Fairlane kcode. Car was white red buckets, four speed. I got to drive it twice. I thought about that car for decades! Well, this past December I found one. Same color, same everything. I love driving this car. Back in 2017 the car was for sale thru Mecum in Florida . Did not meet reserve. I found it online in Indianapolis. I prob. Overpaid but I don’t care. I just enjoy being able to own it and drive It!
Many people will tell you that Ford did not start producing the K code cars until the 1965 Mustangs (actually mid year 1964) was made. But they would be wrong. I turned 14 in 1963 and had an Uncle who was addicted to all things Ford and he got me interested in cars. I have had many cars over the years, of almost every make. I like the Fairlane because not every other car guy has one.
Dean
The description of this fine auto states that it has a vacuum advance distributor. Not true, if one looks closely there is no vacuum line running to the distributor. Ford used a vacuum advance type distributor body, but plugged it and used centrifugal advance on all K code motors. Later motors deleted the vacuum canister.
Thanks for the comment, Dean. I updated the text to reflect this. I recently saw an FE distributor on the HAMB that had a similar blocked-off vacuum advance; the consensus seemed to be that it was originally used on a ’60 352/360 car. Interesting stuff.